Frequently Asked Questions by Service

One tightly defined question involving a claim, document or small source set.

A concise finding, source list, limitations and next questions.

When the matter has several parties, jurisdictions, disputed facts or a long chronology.

It records a defined verification conclusion for a specific permitted purpose.

No, unless a qualified certifier performs the required process.

The note should identify the records checked, exclusions and reliance limits.

When a decision needs a concise but sourced analysis of a defined issue.

It may identify implications and options if the scope permits.

Through citations and, where useful, a separate source register.

Material claims, citations, calculations, definitions, omissions and counter-evidence.

Yes.

It is classified as uncertain or unsupported and the missing evidence is stated.

Yes, by checking whether sources exist and support the stated claim.

No. It can review research produced by any AI or mixed workflow.

A schedule of errors, corrections, remaining gaps and safer replacement language.

Entity existence, ownership, leadership, licences, litigation, sanctions and material red flags.

No.

The conflict is documented and may require local counsel or direct company evidence.

No. The memorandum structures evidence, options, conditions and consequences.

The evidence supports a course of action only if stated conditions are met.

It may support a board record but does not replace governance duties or legal advice.

Yes, with clear jurisdictional limits.

Legislation, regulations, official guidance, authority records and relevant judgments.

No. It can assess requirements and uncertainty, not guarantee an authority decision.

Market entry, partner selection, positioning, opportunity screening and stakeholder planning.

Only when their definitions and methodology are supportable.

Yes, particularly where market claims come from many dependent reports.

Depth, multiple questions, structured findings, chronology, matrices, source records and explicit evidence gaps.

Length follows the matter; completeness and usability matter more than page count.

Only if publication, confidentiality, defamation and source risks are separately considered.

Claims, citations, quotations, dates, legal-risk flags, omissions and correction readiness.

It can, if agreed, but evidence integrity remains the primary task.

No.

The starting evidence position against which later changes are measured.

By defined material events, thresholds or source changes.

Yes, subject to the retainer terms and preservation of the existing record.

Yes at the evidence and methodology level.

When the conclusion depends on testing, engineering sign-off, clinical judgment or advanced statistics outside scope.

Their design, sample, controls, endpoints and generalisability are recorded.

Sometimes not. Gaps in custody, originals or independent records must be stated.

A record of each provenance claim, its source, custody and reliability.

No. Specialist physical examination may be required.

Whether a representation, event, media item or narrative can safely be treated as real and materially accurate.

Not always.

The output records the escalation need and limits reliance.

Bid process, related parties, transaction flows, controls, conflicts and remediation needs.

No, unless performed by an appropriately qualified auditor under audit standards.

It can organise evidence and options, but legal and forensic specialists may be required.

Yes.

It connects each allegation or legal element to supporting, contrary and missing evidence.

Not unless the agreed research question and evidence responsibly support a limited view, and it remains distinct from legal advice.

Identity, relationship, authority, property, funds and communications records.

Only if explicitly scoped, lawful and safe.

No.

Research strategy, evidence mapping, method review, reproducibility and citation assurance within institutional rules.

The student or researcher.

Yes.